科學已經超越哲學了嗎？

What is so disturbing about Sam\'s vision is his effortless linkage of the opening of the west (the \"manifest destiny\" of the pioneers, an adventure fuelled by the religious rhetoric of the Methodist \"Great Awakening\") to human spirit and on to space travel.

山姆的偉大愿景中有一點令我極為厭煩，他居然理所當然地把美國的西部大開發與人類精神、太空旅行聯系在一起，須知當年西部開發急先鋒們信奉的“昭昭天命”不過是在“大覺醒運動”的豪言壯語煽動下的一場冒險而已。

Here, on a single flight-path, Sam connects religion, human nature and science. Life is a soaring vector, and that vector is \"progress\". This is the exact same notion of progress offered by Hawking. Of course, Hawking has no use for religion, but so evangelical about the notion of \"progress\" is he that it might as well be a religion.

在這段講稿中，山姆把宗教、科學與人類本質串在了一條沒有回頭路的單行航線上。人生就是一條沖向高空的航線，這條航線叫做“進步”，與霍金提出的“進步”的概念完全一致。當然，霍金根本不需要宗教，他對于“進步”一念如此狂熱，這已無異于宗教了。

How does Hawking define progress? Pretty much the same way it is defined in a quote attributed to Carlos \"The Jackal\": \"You know you\'re getting somewhere when you\'re stepping over bodies.\" In Hawking\'s case, the bodies are those of philosophers, cast aside by science\'s relentless march.

霍金是如何定義“進步”的？跟“豺狼卡洛斯”的那句名言差不多：你要踩著別人的尸首才能走到那兒。霍金的理論里，那些“尸首”就是哲學家們，他們被無情的科學遠征棄在一旁。

To Hawking, vector is everything. Cosmology is about energy, as biology is about evolution, and Hawking demands that philosophy reflect this crazed restlessness. He criticises philosophers for failing to understand the maths that underpins his sciences, forgetting that it was a stream of philosophers who defined mathematics and, whether Zeno (in the fifth century BC) or Tarski (in the 20th century), also saw the multiple paradoxes that a reliance on numbers can lead to, as well as noting the theoretical impossibility of ever defining \"number\" from inside a mathematical framework. Why does Hawking love energy so much? Because, like Sam Seaborn and S Club 7, his idea of energy reflects a deeper wish to get moving and reach the stars. But he is also devoted to energy because this is simply how modern scientists look at things. Since Einstein, \"energy equals matter\" and Hawking lacks the imagination to think outside this box.

對霍金而言，科學的航程就是一切。就像生物學的核心是進化一樣，宇宙學的關鍵在于能量，霍金要求哲學去反映這種瘋狂焦躁的想法。他批評哲學家們不懂得他理論之下的數學基礎，卻忘了“數學”本身都是由哲學家定義出來的，不管是公元前5世紀的芝諾還是二十世紀的塔斯基，他們都是哲學家。哲學家們意識到了對數字的依賴會導出各種悖論，也注意到在數學框架之內定義“數字”根本不具備理論可能性。霍金為何如此熱愛能量？因為和山姆、七小龍一樣，霍金的能量觀反映了他更深層的愿望：行動起來，追逐繁星。他為何對能量的重要性深信不疑？因為現代科學家就是這樣看待世界的，自從愛因斯坦說了“物質就是能量”之后，霍金再沒有足夠的想象力跳出這個圈子。

What does the universe look like to these men? A recent suggestion, emerging from work done on the Poincare Conjecture, is that the universe is an endlessly moving conveyor belt whose path might be modelled as a three dimensional coating on a four dimensional sphere. That\'s it. The universe is a slightly funky M?bius strip. All that time with their calculators and the best these guys come up with is something they first heard about in kindergarten!

這些科學家眼里的宇宙是什么樣子的？最近在對龐加萊猜想的研究中出現了這樣一種觀點：宇宙可能是一個永不停止的傳送帶，它的路徑可以描述為一個在四維球體上的三維表層。就是這樣，宇宙就是一個奇奇怪怪的莫比斯環。這些科學家算了這么多年，得出的最好成果居然是他們上幼兒園時就聽說過的東西。

If the universe is a four dimensional sphere, is this a metaphor? If so, is it possible that we need a new theory of metaphor? Hawking criticises philosophy for playing trivial word games and one sympathises: it must seem awfully trivial to a guy with no theoretical imagination. Or perhaps we should we go another way and allow that a four dimensional object is real. The question, then, is why should we prefer this object over, say, Leibniz\'s Monads? For Leibniz, a Monad is part of a fundamental multiplicity and each one, within its heart, carries all the information of the universe in a single, stable form.

如果說宇宙是一個四維球體的話，這算是一種隱喻嗎？如果是，那么我們是不是要重新建立關于隱喻的理論了？霍金批評哲學總是玩一些無關緊要的文字游戲，有人同情他說，對于一個沒有理論想象力的人而言，哲學一定是無關緊要之極?；蛘呶覀兛梢該Q一種辦法，姑且承認四維的物體是確實存在的。問題是，我們憑什么就認為這種四維模型要比別的理論，比如萊布尼茨的單子論，更正確呢？在萊布尼茨看來，單子就是組成復合物的基礎實體，每一個單子內部都以一種單純、穩定的方式儲存了宇宙的全部信息。

There it is: an alternative view of matter that does not hinge on an undefined notion of \"progress\", from a man who could out-fox Isaac Newton on a good day and died three hundred years ago. Leibniz shows us why philosophy survives: because it is not stupid, though it may seem that way if one only glances at it, as one speeds past on a road to nowhere.

看見沒，這就是關于物質的另一種不同看法，這種理論不需要依賴一個無法定義的“進步”概念。其提出者萊布尼茨已經過世了三百年，他要是運氣好點兒完全可以超越牛頓。萊布尼茨告訴我們為什么哲學能夠生生不息：因為哲學不是一門愚蠢的學問。但是有人在一條沒有結果的路上飛奔，他匆忙中瞥了哲學一眼，發現哲學看起來很愚蠢。

 （恕譯者完全不能同意原文作者的觀點。）